[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by deep_eyes
well put bro, i agree bin laden is not insane, , he's a very sane man with the intelligence to supress his own people into thinking (using religion), into doing his bidding, the day he straps a bomb on his chest and blows some **** up lol bin laden is insane. so yes hes very sane, sadly sick sadistic and this ussually makes a brilliant man in the wrong ways of life.

He's sane enough to hide in a cave while his followers get slaughtered, yeah. Bin Laddie talks a great game, but you'll never see him sacrifice himself for his cause; he wants to be the new religious ruler of the Middle East. He's a coward. An extraordinarily clever coward, but a coward nonetheless.

Originally posted by deep_eyes
oh well NOBODY are angels, not even us americans, but like everyone sez, killing is killing, and its not justafiable by any means etc...

Actually killing is by definition justifiable; that's what separates it from murder, which ISN'T justifiable.

Using a plane as a guided missile to kill thousands of non-combatant civilians = not justifiable, thus = mass murder.

Bombing the Taliban because Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who attacked us, is being sheltered by the Taliban = justifiable retaliation for an attack on American sovereign soil = justifiable killing, which in turn = NOT murder.

Pretty simple to understand, hmm?

[Stryke 9]

Wiping out entire civilian villages of Afghans because they happen to live in the wrong country= not justifiable= mass murder. Can say much the same things about either side, in the current circumstances. This is not one of those very rare conflicts between good and evil, it's just a squabble between two different types of evil over who gets the spoils of what's left of good.

Anyway. That's not an actual game screen, and it wouldn't be particularly upsetting if it were. After all the "kill Osama", "kill Hussein", and "Kill the Arabs" Java applets that flooded the internet until fairly recently, I think the jihadists can be allowed their ins.

[deep_eyes]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


He's sane enough to hide in a cave while his followers get slaughtered, yeah. Bin Laddie talks a great game, but you'll never see him sacrifice himself for his cause; he wants to be the new religious ruler of the Middle East. He's a coward. An extraordinarily clever coward, but a coward nonetheless.



Actually killing is by definition justifiable; that's what separates it from murder, which ISN'T justifiable.

Using a plane as a guided missile to kill thousands of non-combatant civilians = not justifiable, thus = mass murder.

Bombing the Taliban because Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who attacked us, is being sheltered by the Taliban = justifiable retaliation for an attack on American sovereign soil = justifiable killing, which in turn = NOT murder.

Pretty simple to understand, hmm?

then why did the US support a rebel alliance in south america decades ago overthrow a DEMOCRATIC NATION the US at first was helping, then straight turned there back on?? how many people have been killed by american military where as it was justafiyable to kill even there civilians? im not saying that damn we shouldnt fight back, cause i was there when the WTC got hit and saw it and saw people die, as did thousands did first hand around the site, but to say everything we do is justafyable, isnt. because simply put we have done of things to other nations and taken advantage of them.

"with a military behind you (the senator/leader), you can be VERY Political".

[CP5670]

I say everything is fully justifyable; the terrorist actions, our actions, whatever. All the justification that is required is "we can do it; you don't like it, too bad!" And that is how things work; if the capability exists, it is already justified.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by deep_eyes
then why did the US support a rebel alliance in south america decades ago overthrow a DEMOCRATIC NATION the US at first was helping, then straight turned there back on?? how many people have been killed by american military where as it was justifiable to kill even their civilians?

If the South American country you're talking about is Chile or maybe Argentina, I agree with you. CIA may have known about Operation Condor (a conspiracy between South American dictators to eliminate leftist dissident activists that fled across national borders and protested their home governments from a different South American country) and let it happen without warning the activists. Thousands of people were impisoned as political prisoners and most of them were never seen again. Any accomplices of this in the US government have nothing but my complete contempt. I'm from Argentina and my parents knew people, mostly neighbors and acquaintances, who were "disappeared" during the 1970s and 1980s and never saw them again.

This sort of thing was DEFINITELY NOT justifiable. CIA was complicit in this because they figured is was better to side with repressive dictators rather than democratically elected socialists and democratically elected communists.

Originally posted by deep_eyes
im not saying that damn we shouldnt fight back, cause i was there when the WTC got hit and saw it and saw people die, as did thousands did first hand around the site, but to say everything we do is justafyable, isnt. because simply put we have done of things to other nations and taken advantage of them.

I never said EVERYTHING we did was justifiable (see above). But there's no question that the war in Afganistan was justified. It's a shame about the Afgan civilian casualties, but that illustrates the difference between countries like the USA and Israel and the terrorists like Al Queda and the Palestinian militants: We do everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties as possible (even as we realize that civilian casualties are impossible to completely avoid in wartime) while the terrorists go out of their way to maximize civilian casualties.

Let there be no doubt that America and Israel are made up of the good guys.

Originally posted by deep_eyes
"with a military behind you (the senator/leader), you can be VERY Political".

Deep Eyes, who is this quoted from? What senator or leader said this, and is this an exact quote?

[deep_eyes]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


If the South American country you're talking about is Chile or maybe Argentina, I agree with you. CIA may have known about Operation Condor (a conspiracy between South American dictators to eliminate leftist dissident activists that fled across national borders and protested their home governments from a different South American country) and let it happen without warning the activists. Thousands of people were impisoned as political prisoners and most of them were never seen again. Any accomplices of this in the US government have nothing but my complete contempt. I'm from Argentina and my parents knew people, mostly neighbors and acquaintances, who were "disappeared" during the 1970s and 1980s and never saw them again.

This sort of thing was DEFINITELY NOT justifiable. CIA was complicit in this because they figured is was better to side with repressive dictators rather than democratically elected socialists and democratically elected communists.



I never said EVERYTHING we did was justifiable (see above). But there's no question that the war in Afganistan was justified. It's a shame about the Afgan civilian casualties, but that illustrates the difference between countries like the USA and Israel and the terrorists like Al Queda and the Palestinian militants: We do everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties as possible (even as we realize that civilian casualties are impossible to completely avoid in wartime) while the terrorists go out of their way to maximize civilian casualties.

Let there be no doubt that America and Israel are made up of the good guys.



Deep Eyes, who is this quoted from? What senator or leader said this, and is this an exact quote?

Well put, actually i wasnt disagreeing with u on some points, i totally agree with you, and no u didnt say anything, i was stating a rhetoric question. this the first time a good convo came out of the forum for a min. its late so ima reply to this tomorrow its lol.

[Stryke 9]

Aah, a fellow Machiavellian. I LIKE this side of you, CP!:D

Anyway. I think the thing about "minimizing civilian casualties" is highly questionable. However, all the information anyone has about the current situation is essentially different flavors of bull****, and thus there's no point in arguing about it. Let's just say that there's just as much evidence that the US (and particularly Israel) don't give a **** about the lives of civilians, and make nice words about peace and love while dropping bombs on children, as there is to support the claim that we're not that bad. Very little, either way, because the propoganda machine's still pretty damn efficient on both sides. Don't rely on it to back up your arguments, because it's not likely either side is telling the truth. It's not worth arguing on, because nobody knows anything about this particular situation, but we DO know that the US is losing what repute it had for supporting human rights (no secret that the military's torturing POWs in Guantanamo and making arrests without warrants or specific charges), and we do have a long tradition of simply killing everything in sight when we go to war. Israel, well, I think everyone already has heard enough about THAT.

[Silver_Scythe]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Is that what we're portrayed as in the western media? War-thirsty warlords who would nuke all our neighbours at the blink of an eye? Seems to me that that's the exact situation our neighbours are in concerning us - they are looking for an excuse to wipe us out.  

Actually the western media is pretty !@#% liberal. I do not think it reflects the majority of what intelligent people think. (BTW I live in the US, am a ConSerVative, and am proud of it!)
And if some of you want to rag on George Bush, remember Sudan was willing to give us Bin Laden but Bill Clinton didn't take the offer.

[Stryke 9]

So? At least under Clinton we didn't have arrests without warrants, or legalized torture. Don't get me wrong, I love Bush, but only because he's going to make it so damn easy for us to rebuild the old revolutionary war machine and start over again from where it went wrong 40 years ago. DNC ain't got nothin' on what we'll be able to do to a GENUINE dictator!

And as for the liberal media... [spits]. Uh-huh. You ever turn on the radio, dude? The whole "liberal news media conspiracy" is a joke, and has been for years. Can't say there's much more of a "conservative news media conspiracy", but at least we leftists (correction: at least we true leftists, not those half-assed Democratic-party crap-your-pants-if-you-hear-"niggardly" fascist "liberals" who are more bigoted and vile than any redneck I've ever met) have the sense not to run around squawking about it. No. Such. Bleeding. Thing. I have yet to hear a SINGLE WORD against the war in ANY of the newspapers, and I happen to be in the range of pretty much the most "liberal" rag around, the Washington Post.

[CP5670]

So? At least under Clinton we didn't have arrests without warrants, or legalized torture.

This is one thing I like about Bush, actually.

I am fairly radical by nature, but more in the line of the communist warmonger radical rather than your usual moralistic liberal of today. Both parties have gotten some things right and some things wrong, but the current distinctions are really messy; the guys called "conservatives" sometimes like change and the guys called "liberals" sometimes want to prevent change, and the names do not really make much sense.

[Stryke 9]

I know. Look at the party platforms. I know it sounds trite, but it's Tweedledum and Tweedledee- all they really know is, they disagree. All else, it's up for grabs. Hence abortion, race laws, etc. become  "liberal" causes and more military government, quasi-theocratic rule, etc. "conservative" ones. Which is why the split from the Old Left in the first place- they're just as deadly as the rightists, but at least with them, we know what we're dealing with. Democrats, hearing you're an anarchist, put their shoulders around you all chummy-chum-chum while reaching for your wallet and then a stiletto for your back. "Conservatives" of pretty much every flavor openly bare their teeth to you, and that helps us get strength in numbers when we fight back.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
I have yet to hear a SINGLE WORD against the war in ANY of the newspapers, and I happen to be in the range of pretty much the most "liberal" rag around, the Washington Post.

Does The Millitant still Exist?

[Stryke 9]

I believe not.

[CP5670]

I know. Look at the party platforms. I know it sounds trite, but it's Tweedledum and Tweedledee- all they really know is, they disagree. All else, it's up for grabs. Hence abortion, race laws, etc. become  "liberal" causes and more military government, quasi-theocratic rule, etc. "conservative" ones. Which is why the split from the Old Left in the first place- they're just as deadly as the rightists, but at least with them, we know what we're dealing with. Democrats, hearing you're an anarchist, put their shoulders around you all chummy-chum-chum while reaching for your wallet and then a stiletto for your back. "Conservatives" of pretty much every flavor openly bare their teeth to you, and that helps us get strength in numbers when we fight back.

Yeah, I personally think that both parties' ideologies are completely inconsistent and een blatently contradictory at times; on any subject, each party tends to simply choose the opposite of whatever stance the other party has, so to pick a fight and thus gain popular support. In the end you have two really inconsistent combinations of ideas and each party seems to be united only over their hatred of the other party and nothing more.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
I believe not.

Hmm, It still seems to be Available online ( http://www.themilitant.com ) although you might have trouble getting your newsagent to stock it in printed form.

Yeah, I personally think that both parties' ideologies are completely inconsistent and een blatently contradictory at times; on any subject, each party tends to simply choose the opposite of whatever stance the other party has, so to pick a fight and thus gain popular support. In the end you have two really inconsistent combinations of ideas and each party seems to be united only over their hatred of the other party and nothing more.

Yes I agree totally. Look at what's happened in Britain. The so called "Labour" Party has given us the most repulsive right wing government we've ever had just to conform to public opinion during a long reign of conservatism.

[Stryke 9]

Out here? No ****.

Gotta love cow country...

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Out here? No ****.

Gotta love cow country...

There's no **** in cow country? Are you sure about that, Stryke?